https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170299 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld where stock shortages in raw material and finished goods were explained by estimation-based production records, actual weighment at clearance stage, burning loss, and stock-accounting discrepancies. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the Revenue or proof of clandestine removal, the matter was treated as one of irregular record maintenance rather than suppression or illicit clearance. The penalty was therefore considered justified and adequate, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2015 10:34:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170299 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld where stock shortages in raw material and finished goods were explained by estimation-based production records, actual weighment at clearance stage, burning loss, and stock-accounting discrepancies. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the Revenue or proof of clandestine removal, the matter was treated as one of irregular record maintenance rather than suppression or illicit clearance. The penalty was therefore considered justified and adequate, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170299